The court held that the previous judgments regarding technical/professional courses did not apply to the degrees obtained by the petitioners, and ordered the issuance of conditional appointment letters.

JUDGMENT

Lisa Gill, J. - This order shall dispose of CWP No.12283 of 2015 (ArpanaYadav v. State of Haryana and others), CWP No.20823 of 2015 (Kuldeep Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others), CWP No.14102 of 2016 (Mani Ram v. State of Haryana and others) and CWP No.9736 of 2014 (Sidhraj v.State of Haryana and others) as an identical issue arises in all these four petitions. All the abovesaid writ petitions were taken up together for hearing and decision at request and with consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioners in all these writ petitions seek appointment to the post of PGT (English, Mathematics, Hindi and Physical Education). The petitioners, it is stated, being fully qualified, applied for the posts in question pursuant to advertisement No.1/2012 dated 06.06.2012, published on 07.06.2012. The petitioners were reflected to have been selected as per the results declared on 30.12.2013, 03.04.2013 and 01.01.2014. Appointments have been denied to all the petitioners on the ground that they secured their qualifications from deemed Universities i.e., 'Institute of Advanced Studies in Education, Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardar Shahar, Rajasthan' and 'Institute of Vinayak Mission University, Salem, Tamil Nadu'. In the present set of cases, insofar as the factual position regarding the petitioners being otherwise fully eligible and qualified, is not in dispute. Their candidature has been rejected solely on the ground that they have secured the requisite educational qualification from the abovesaid deemed institutes/universities.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the matter is squarely covered in favour of the petitioners in view of decision dated 27.05.2015 in CWP No.7626 of 2015 (Gurmail Kaur and others v. State of Haryana and another). LPA No.1215 of 2015 preferred by the State of Haryana challenging the abovesaid decision dated 27.05.2015 was dismissed as withdrawn on 19.08.2019 with liberty to the State to file review petition. The review petition filed by the State was dismissed on 08.01.2021. Thereafter, LPA No.171 of 2021 challenging said order dated 08.01.2021 was also dismissed vide order dated 22.03.2021 primarily on the ground that the State has not sought permission to file a fresh appeal against decision dated 27.05.2015 in CWP No.7626 of 2015, when LPA No.1215 of 2015 was dismissed as withdrawn on 19.08.2019.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though SLP No.17134 of 2021 has been filed by the State challenging order dated 22.03.2021 in LPA No.171 of 2021 in which notice has been issued, the State Government itself has proceeded to issue conditional appointment letters to persons identically situated as the present petitioners. However, appointment is being denied to the petitioners in an absolutely unjust manner.Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that in the case of present petitioners too, conditional appointment letters may be issued subject to decision of SLP No.17134 of 2021. The present petitions, it is contended, were filed wayback in the year 2015 and were kept pending to await decision in LPA No.1215 of 2015. At this stage, it is urged that there is no justification left with the respondent-authorities in denying appointment letters to the petitioners as has been done in the case of identically situated persons. Reference is made to the short reply filed in all these cases wherein it is admitted that similar controversy has been decided in the petitioners' favour vide order dated 27.05.2015 in CWP No.7626 of 2015 (Gurmail Kaur and others v. State of Haryana and another). However, as LPA No.1215 of 2015 was stated to be pending, it was prayed that proceedings in the present petitions be kept in abeyance till the final outcome of LPA No.1215 of 2015. It is, thus, prayed that at this stage conditional appointment letters be issued in favour of the petitioners, who have been vigilantly pursuing their remedy since 2015.

5. Learned counsel for the